A bike and pedestrian detour opened on August 18, 2010 near the intersection of E. Marginal Way and S. Spokane Street.  Cyclists and pedestrians are being routed through what used to be part of a truck layover parking lot.  Signage approaching the detour is well marked for users of the detour near both ends.  Initially the portion of the detour that transitions from the sidewalk on the north side of Spokane St to the paved parking lot was gravel. This gravel portion (consisting of 1″ gravel pieces) is/was located on a slight curve as well.  I was amazed enough that first afternoon to stop and gape at it for a moment; if a cyclist hit that gravel traveling a normal speed on thinner tires the cyclist would very likely loose purchase on the surface and skid/fall.  I immediately wrote to Seattle Department of Transportation regarding this issue.  They were duly concerned and the gravel area was paved over within several days and an SDOT representative contacted me to follow up.  This was a pleasant and fast resolution to a problematic area for cyclists.

The other, more problematic portion of the detour has yet to be resolved.  Access to the east section of the detour is 10 feet up into the drive.  To access the detour path a cyclist must ride a short distance up the WRONG WAY into the exit side of the drive.  This is completely unacceptable.  In addition, there are no warnings to drivers exiting the drive that cyclists will be entering the drive rather than crossing via the sidewalk.  Note also that the “sidewalk crossing” is completely unmarked in any case – there are no sidewalk markings whatsoever here and it’s unclear exactly where drivers should stop.

Approaching the east detour area.

View of the detour exit/entrance from the Port lot drive.

View of the exit/entry from the Detour path.

In addition, a chain link fence has been installed where the blue tape is seen between the cones in the image attached.  It further obscures users of the detour from the field of vision of the drivers using the port lot.

The SDOT representative I have been communicating with, and who has been sent the same images that are posted here, has been responsive and is relaying information to the Project Manager of the area and they will discuss it with the Port.  The SDOT representative has been told that “access to the (detour) path crosses in front of the Port driveway (as does the permanent existing sidewalk).  The site lines are deemed OK for when people are driving the appropriate speed and we can’t, unfortunately, design to stop bad driving.”

It’s interesting that not once did I complain about speeding drivers here and speed has little to do with conflicts of vehicles vs. bikes here.  The more concerning statement is that SDOT can’t design to stop bad driving.  This is true to a point; however the design of the detour can be implemented in a better way to help prevent even good drivers/cyclists from this dangerous conflicting route intersection.  I will make updates as this discussion with SDOT proceeds.

We’d like your opinions on NE 125th street.
Click here to take our survey

What should be done with this road?

• 89% of drivers exceed the 30 mph speed limit
• 85% of drivers travel at 40-42 mph
• On the uphill climb, 74% of drivers are speeding.
• It has seen repeated police speed enforcement attempts.
• Collisions with pedestrians on this street have an 18% higher injury rate than the city average for similar streets.
• To get to their bus stop using a crosswalk, neighbors walk half a mile because the road has so few safe crossings.
• Many of the side streets are dead ends.
• The traffic volume for this road is 2/3rds of the capacity of a 3-lane road.
• This road is a 4 lane road with narrow lanes.
• Neighbors have been asking the city to make this road safer.
• It is the home to 4 churches, two pharmacies, a physical therapy clinic, and many single family residential dwellings.

With the injuries, doesn’t it seem like something should be done to reduce speeding?  What tools do traffic engineers have to slow traffic flows and encourage adherance to the speed limit for arterials?

Wouldn’t it sound reasonable to apply a treatment that has worked  on 26 other arterials around the city over the past few decades to help traffic flow smoother, stick to the speed limit more, and increase safety?

SeattleLikesBikes has a funny history with road diets.  We were formed over the battle to finish the Stone Way road diet.  It took a year, but the road diet was eventually finished.

Since then, SDOT has implemented more road diets and we’ve fought more battles, but the battles keep getting larger.  The opposition on Nickerson was more organized and larger than we’ve seen it ever before, including having several state representatives testify to the city council transportation committee.

It seems that we are doing something wrong.  We are focusing on winning the battle, convincing SDOT and the city council to keep implementing the plan of past mayors and past councils, but we haven’t been good at the war.  We’ve let the Seattle Times frame road diets as bicycles vs. cars, as bike facilities taking lanes away from cars, and that is how we are losing the war.

We are losing because we are letting it be a car vs. bicycle war when it isn’t.  The war is to restore healthy walkable neighborhoods.  The war is to create community where neighbors can walk and meet each other and form relationships.  The war is to restore civility on the roads.  The war is to create roads that work and that aren’t over engineered to be racetracks through every back yard in the city.  The war is to reduce areas of chronic speeding that seriously injurs our friends and neighbors.

So, how do we win the war?

We re-shape the discussion.  At every turn, we lead in with the very strong problem statements.   We engage drivers by talking about their  inability to make left hand turns and how often they already block a lane of traffic making those turns.  We inform everyone of the public costs of crashes with pedestrians, of the relative crash rates between dieted arterials and over-engineered arterials.  We then describe all of the options and their relative costs without saying “a road diet is what we have already decided to do”, let them mull over the options and it should become obvious that the road diet is best.  If our opponents realized that a 4-way stoplight can cost a quarter of a million dollars, if they realized the cost of an overhead pedestrian walkway, if they realized the cost to the public of uninsured motorists hitting pedestrians, they could start to see the problem through our eyes instead of through their windshield.

It is not bicycles vs. cars even though that is an attention grabbing “man bites dog” angle for the news media to take.  It is friends and neighbors struggling to build a better community.  It is little Johnny who has to walk uphill a quarter of a mile so he can cross the street to get to his bus.  It is chronic speeding where even with repeated police enforcement only 11% of drivers obey the speed limit.  It is SDOT starting to listen to the neighborhoods who have been asking for help. 

To win the war, we need to change minds and re-frame the debate.

When a driver endangers my life while I am riding my bicycle by driving especially aggressively, recklessly or just plain old badly, like many cyclists I tend to make a note of that vehicle, if not to the point of taking a plate number, and make sure I get a good look at the driver if possible.  Sometimes I report them to the Seattle Police Department if they are a repeat offender via this handy tool.  Sometimes though, I don’t report them.  But I remember them.  In my neighborhood, which is fairly small and does not suffer from much through traffic, oftentimes I see these people again in a non-driving situation.  Recently, a woman drove her vehicle quite aggressively and dangerously around me as I was waiting at a stop sign for oncoming traffic to clear.  She was completely in a rage that she had to wait behind me on my bicycle; even though had I been in a car she would have been in the same predicament.  Both she and her vehicle were highly identifiable.  The other day I saw her in the grocery store talking with someone she hadn’t seen for some time.  I was wearing regular street clothes at the time and there’s no way she would have recognized me.  I debated for a few good moments about approaching her and introducing myself, but then what?  What do you say to someone who would have much rather run you over a month before?  How do you talk with them in the grocery store about their driving “problem?”  Or should you take a different approach and explain to them how the incident affected you and why you were doing what you were doing at the time of your last encounter?  Would it matter?  After finding her vehicle in the parking lot, I regretted not having a few flyers on me to leave under her wiper blade.  But would that have been enough?

SDOT is proudly touting the ARAN road survey vehicle that they are using to map arterial street conditions.

Why aren’t they driving it on non-arterials?

Shouldn’t we know the condition of our residential streets?

Sound Transit sent out an email update today to those subscribed to bicycle related updates from the agency.

You are subscribed to Bicycle Updates for Sound Transit. Travelers LOVE Link light rail. So, as a reminder during the busy travel season, bicyclists and passengers with luggage may use the bicycle storage area next to the doors on a first-come, first-served basis. In addition, luggage should not be stored in the ADA seating area, but can be stored under your seat.

Sound Transit currently allows four bicycle per car and runs two car long trains, theoretically allowing up to eight bicycles per train. Each car has two hooks, but as noted above these are not reserved for bicycles by the agency. As you cannot travel between cars, or practically through a single car’s articulating section with a bicycle, you must wait at the head end of the platform for the train to arrive and quickly walk toward the tail of the train scouting each car for available hooks. The other two bicycles per car have no designated location, but may not block the ADA seating or aisles. The only location I’ve found that works is against whichever doors are not going to open at the next station. For instance, when traveling south from the Downtown Seattle Transit Tunnel (DSTT), by standing against the left side doors you have to contend with traffic only at the center stations. This is far from ideal, and seems like allowing the two additional bikes was an arbitrary compromise on Sound Transits part. Excluding the bicycle storage area, which is now officially shared with luggage, effectively bicycles may only be brought on trains without standing passengers.

Should Link’s bicycle storage area have been designed better? Perhaps putting bicycles in the articulating section like VTA does?

The Seattle P-I posted this article regarding upcoming bike box installation.

It’s a generally positive article explaining what a bike box is, how a bike box is used, what other cities use them, how they are installed and where they will be located.  The article focuses on how bike boxes help cyclists navigate traffic signals, especially those at which cyclists tend to be put in right-hook (vehicle making a right crosses into the path of a cyclist traveling straight with the Right of Way) situation.  But you wouldn’t know if from the hook line on the PI website front page:  “New Bike Boxes:  $15,000 to make the street green?”  The actual title is “SDOT tries bike boxes to protect cyclists.”  As Michael points out in his article “Reflections on the Bicycle Master Plan“ public perception plays a big part in making cycling a normal mode of travel within this city.  The media generally goes for the hyperbole like the Seattle Times article “Danger in the bike lane“ which does nothing to promote cycling; rather it may actually discourage people from riding.

What the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) needs to do is actively promote cycling and get the word out to the public in a systemized manner.  SDOT, the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board (SBAB), and Walk and Bike Seattle Pedestrian programs let the general media get away with publishing misleading tag lines and articles slanted in an anti-bike manner that only give incentive to those who are against cyclists in general.  Where is the promotion of cycling from anyone but the Mayor McGinn?  Councilmember Tom Rasmussen recently dedicated himself to riding to work one week in July and wrote about it on his blog which is a start, but still, unless you read the West Seattle Blog did you even know about it?  Did you even know there was a Walk/Bike/Ride Challenge recently?  The more cycling is marginalized by the media the more cyclists will have to fight for infrastructure, equality on the streets, and understanding from their fellow road-users.

The Seattle Bicycle Master Plan has been a huge success by many measures. First, it had funding. Most bicycle master plans are written and sit on a shelf gathering dust without funding for decades until they are woefully out of date. The Seattle Bicycle Master Plan had some initial, limited, funding for the quick, cheap blast of sharrows and bike lanes. It hasn’t gotten the second round of larger funding for expensive projects like pedestrian and bicycle bridges, more multi-use trails, and fixing nightmares like the Ballard Bridge.

It has also been an absolute failure by some measures too. We’ve put sharrows, which supposedly indicate the safest lane position to bicycle, over lateral cracks and concrete pad seams which are one of the most dangerous surface defects possible for a cyclist. We have community groups that are clammoring for bicycle improvements that go far beyond what the Bicycle Master Plan calls for, and even that the plan rejects as the Seattle Bike Blog discusses.

Perhaps one of the biggest flaws in the Bicycle Master Plan is that it doesn’t call for before and after studies of all of the new experimental facilities. We now have sharrows, green lanes, buffered bike lanes, and we will likely have cycletracks. These are all very new to Seattle and pretty new to the United States and while the last thing we want to do is see good projects get stuck in a committee and be debated to death, we should carefully measure the effectiveness and the document the design decisions because we are becoming a template for other cities to follow. With anything new, we are going to miss details and make mistakes. If we don’t outlaw a free right turn on a red light, will right turning cars frequently hit cycletrack users? If the cycletrack doesn’t have clear signage, will it be more hazardous than a bike lane? If we don’t document and measure, how will we know?

Rumor has it that there was a preliminary study of sharrows on Stone Way that got nixxed by SDOT. It said that sharrows on an uphill slope were not effective. That is really important data for other communities to have when they think about deploying sharrows.

So, what now? We are about to start thinking of a major update to the Bicycle Master Plan. What should be included in the new Bicycle Master Plan?

1. Dedicated funding. Without funding, a plan is just a pile of paper. This time, we need to fund the big projects too.
2. Go beyond bicycles. Calm traffic. Reduce the residential speed limit to 20 mph. Cap arterials at 35 mph.
3. Eliminate the free right on red where bicycle facilities are present.
4. Go beyond SDOT. Look at bicycle culture. Bring in the Parks Department and work with events like the Seattle Bicycle Music Festival.  Encourage the large number of varried bicycle groups in Seattle to create an annual Bike-a-palooza type festival for Seattle.
5. Go beyond engineering. Along some of our multi-use-trails we have fun art installations. With the influx of new cyclists, we need education and enforcement. The new Bicycle Master Plan could encourage expansion of public art, add bicycle safety education to the Park Rangers services, add enforcement of laws like stopping at stop lights and helmet usage.
6. Continue to expand the toolset of SDOT, but with before and after effectiveness, safety, and public perception studies of new experimental facilities.  Allow cycletracks and anything else we can imagine, but study the before and after situations and save some money to go back and fix the mistakes that we are bound to make as we try new things.
7. Expand the role of the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board to also connect with social justice and environmental groups across the city.  Currently, the wealthy neighborhoods like Ballard have good bicycle facilities and lots of bike racks and the poorer neighborhoods have minimal bicycle facilities and few bike racks.  We need to look beyond the current cycling population and see the unmet needs in other neighborhoods.
8. Make pavement quality on bicycle routes a priority.  When SDOT last told the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board about non-arterial pavement quality, they said that out of the 2000 lane miles of non-arterial streets, SDOT has budget to replace 1 lane mile per year.  Typically, asphalt roads have a 25 year lifespan and cement roads have up to a 75 year lifespan.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve lost count of the number of times I have had motorists yell at me.

I’ve been told that I can’t bicycle on the road, that I must ride on the sidewalk.

I’ve been told that I am required to use a bicycle lane if it exists.

I’ve been told that I have to get out of the way, when on a 4-lane road I have one car that wants to pass me. A car that can just change lanes and pass me.

Well, PEMCO did a survey in the northwest and it is frightening how much motor vehicle drivers think they know that is just false.

PEMCO survey results

Among the errors:

• Is it legal to ride two abreast?
  48% said it is illegal.
  RCW 46.61.770 says it is legal.
• Can bicyclists be ticketed for riding sidewalks?
  54% said yes.
  RCW 46.61.770 says no.
• Can bicyclists be ticketed for riding in crosswalks?
  33% said yes.
  RCW 46.61.235 says no.
• Are motor vehicle drivers required to give cyclists 4 feet of passing space?
  48% said they don’t know.
  The RCW says “a safe distance” and the driver’s guide says give at least 3 feet.

Next time a motorist yells at you, consider it an education opportunity.

After attending the open house today I came away with two major concerns. While the bike lane configuration has some issues the bigger problem with the plan is the transition of the bike lane to Sharrows.

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/SWAdmiralPlans7_2_10.pdf

Two crucial problems are the pinch points for cyclists at the top and bottom of the hill.  At the top of the hill the bike lane ends and there is a 30’ transition area that dumps cyclists right onto the Sharrowed Street, on the uphill, right before the entrance to the City View Viewpoint and the start of the Sharrow lane.  This is a poor transition since cyclists will essentially be entering the street with traffic traveling much faster and with vehicles potentially making right turns into the viewpoint parking lot.  If the bike lane were extended to just past the north exit of the viewpoint and then transition to Sharrows on the flatter part of the street it would be a safer and more logical route.

The second problem area is at the bottom of Admiral.  Since there was recently an accident at Manning/Admiral this intersection needs more thought as to how cyclists actually use it.

The bike lane transitions to Sharrows, which are located along the curb in the right turn only lane.  The Sharrows continue in the long right turn only lane and down SW Manning Street.  There is no infrastructure for cyclists that continue on Admiral under the bridge to Spokane Street.  This is a major oversight.  The route under the bridge leads cyclists on a route directly to the lower bridge which cyclists use to travel to West Marginal, downtown, SODO, Georgetown, etc.  Misleadingly placed Sharrows could reinforce the incorrect idea that cyclists cannot travel under the bridge and must exit the street grid at Manning.  Worse, it may lead cyclists to travel in the right turn only lane, only to make a dangerous leftwards movement across the lanes into traffic continuing on Admiral.  SDOT needs to take a closer look at this area to rectify the potential problems.

Since Wednesday, a citizen backlash has gone from a single energized individual to a facebook group with over 100 friends, a google group with at least 27 members a lot of activity, and some press.

Why the backlash?  A few years ago, on Stone Way, a handful of businesses stalled a much needed safety project for over a year.  Today, a business group is threatening to stall or block similar measures for Nickerson Street, and now Seattle councilmember Tom Rasmussen says that the Nickerson road diet gives him “indigestion.”   Those businesses along with a community club and a neighborhood organization are claiming that they represent the entire neighborhoods of Queen Anne and Magnolia in opposing the road diet.  This has engergized some concerned individuals in those neighborhoods who really want the road diet.

Our friends over at Cascade are running a Tums for Tom  campaign to write the councilmember and offer him antacid.  While it is fun to think of Tom’s office flooded with hundreds of bottles of Tums on Tuesday, we’d like to remind the good councilmember of some recent history:

Tom,

SeattleLikesBikes was there when the road diet was to be implemented on Stone Way.  Freight businesses claimed that there were too many trucks that created a safety hazard.  Local businesses claimed that they’d be forced to close and that the change was a big surprise to them.  Pedestrians were tired of not being able to cross the street.  Cyclists wanted a place to ride.  Neighbors wanted their crosswalks back.  We held a protest bicycle ride to request that the city continue to follow the Bicycle Master Plan and implement the road diet.  Some business owners picketed our protest ride, one with “Bikers are Bullies” signs.

We engaged those business owners in a conversation, if you can call them yelling at us while we tried to calmly discuss our differences.  We found that they had most of their facts wrong, and they were scared and unwilling to back down.  A year of studies showed that the road diet would make traffic flow more smoothly and that it wouldn’t cause the doomsday scenarios that the business owners feared. 

It is distressing that business worries put the lives of their neighbors at risk.  In the year of the study, pedestrians faced a higher risk of being hit trying to cross the street.  In our protest ride, a pedestrian was legally crossing the street and was nearly run down by a motorist who sped up to pass illegally and dangerously close to him.  SDOT reports that the road diet has reduced collisions with pedestrians on Stone Way by 80%. 

 Today Nickerson poses similar hazards to pedestrians as Stone Way did before the road diet.  To see the problem, stand at 12th or 13th on the north side of Nickerson and try to cross to the south side of Nickerson (where the trail is).  Now that gives us heartburn.  We are some pretty hearty urban cyclists and aren’t intimidated by much, but that scares us!

Please push the road diet forward, don’t let it take a fatality before the city fixes this dangerous road!

Sincerely,

SeattleLikesBikes.org

The true cost of driving might be $9/gallon when we include paving, parking, air pollution, injuries to pedestrians and motorists, and all of the soft costs.

http://www.assmotax.org/Releases/AMCT%20release:%20The%20Automobile%20Subsidy.php

How much would you drive if you paid the full cost of your own driving?

What do you do when an industrial organization twists the arm of a community group and forms a coalition that advocates against safety?  What do you do when they tell the city that they are speaking for you in the process?

That is what is happening in Magnolia and Queen Anne.

As a result, a few individuals are trying to put together their own coalition to organize those who are in favor of the road diet.  Without the deep industrial pockets of the North Seattle Industrial Association, this group was formed just a few days ago and has no budget for publicity.  The members just want a safer Nickerson Street.

http://groups.google.com/group/Nickerson-road-diet

As we reported earlier, when the city planned to implement a road diet on Stone Way, a business coalition was formed and pulled developer Suzie Burke in to twist the arm of the mayor and halt the project while the city studied the situation for another year.  In that year, SeattleLikesBikes organized a protest ride where hundreds of bicycles tried to create a traffic jam.  It turns out that bicycles are horribly inefficient at creating traffic jams and cars are much better.  We showed that it was a very important issue for cyclists and for the community, we helped do traffic counts that showed that the 4-lanes were not the best solution considering the high level of turning traffic and eventually the city implemented the road diet.

SDOT released a study on the before and after of the Stone Way road diet.  As we reported earlier, motorist vs. pedestrian crashes went down 80% and speeding to the excess of 10+ mph over the limit dropped 75%.  Road diets make safer roads.

So why now and why Nickerson?

Nickerson Street, like Stone Way was and like 24th Ave NW was, is a 4-lane street that used to have marked crosswalks at intersections without stoplights.  A few years ago a study came out that said that those crosswalks were risky, so SDOT removed them.  For SDOT to have a crosswalk on a 4-lane street, they want to have a stoplight there.  Stoplights cost around $100,000 to $200,000 to install at an intersection on average.  Paint for the entire Nickerson road diet will be almost less than the cost of putting in a single crosswalk.

There are arguments from the other side of course. 

They say that it will create a traffic jam around the Fremont Bridge, but they aren’t paying attention and aren’t seeing that the road diet stops long before that point.  They also aren’t seeing that less speeding earlier means less traffic backup later.

They say that cyclists should just use the Ship Canal Trail, but they don’t see that the Ship Canal Trail doesn’t connect anywhere and that it is nearly impossible to cross the 4 lanes of 45 mph traffic coming from two directions around a low-visibility curve to cross from the north side of Nickerson to get to the trail.

They say that this is the cycling lobby pushing their agenda, but they don’t see that Nickerson bisects the Seattle Pacific University campus and that the traffic creates more than a half-mile wall for pedestrians.

The Nickerson Street road diet is a safety issue.  We need to move forward with it today!

Mike Lindblom’s recent front page article in the Seattle Times on Bike to Work day summarizes into an important question: when will we build seamless bicycle infrastructure? The Seattle Bicycle Master Plan sets out a plan to create “a safe, connected and attractive network of bicycle facilities” and follows this goal with a table of recommended facility construction in miles. This section is followed by a map of Seattle showing a future city covered by bicycle routes. However, what exactly do these lines convey? The executive summary of the SBMP contains a sidebar defining a bikeway:

Bikeway: A generic term for any road, street, path, or way which in some manner is specifically designated for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for the exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes.
(Source: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities, 1999)

Antagonists of the progress of the SBMP will often complain that its success is primarily measured by the number of bicycle racks installed in the city. While providing additional facilities designed for bicycles is a goal of the SBMP it may sometimes feel like a least-cost effort. However, this comes as no surprise as the once touted SBMP is severely underfunded, by as much as 70%. Besides financial woes, progress in completing these goals also lacks political capital. Opponents continue to argue that building and converting lanes to bicycle facilities will increase congestion, bicycle infrastructure is actually meant to combat these quandaries and recent studies complement this belief. Opponents of building more roads cite induced demand as evidence that this route would not reduce congestion in the long run, while advocates of additional bicycling infrastructure trust that adding bicycle facilities will conversely increase the number of trips made by bicycle. As our bicycle commuting Mayor Mike McGinn builds up political support for his “Walk. Bike. Ride.” initiative, we see postponed plans for road diets come back from the dead.

While controversial projects like the Alaskan Way Viaduct tunnel and other “road diets” are being argued over, we see other road construction projects move along with little discussion as to the bicycle facilities being added to them. In the SODO neighborhood, we see the West Seattle Bridge trail end East Marginal Way South. This trail connects well to West Seattle and the Alki trail which continues along the bay. To the east of SODO is the Chief Sealth Trail whose continued extension brings it closer and closer to it’s planned connection into SODO per the SBMP. Also, to the north is the SODO Busway trail, starting at South Royal Brougham Way and coming to an abrupt stop in a parking lot at South Forest Street. The obvious connection here is South Spokane Street. The SBMP recommends a multi-use path be constructed from the terminus of the West Seattle Bridge trail to Airport Way South as the connection between all of these.

When would enough construction take place to allow a multi-use trail to be built in this corridor? Right now. The Spokane Street viaduct is being rebuilt into a total of ten vehicle lanes between two levels. Diagrams show the lower levels to be a separated four lane road without shoulders. With all of the available space underneath the six lane upper level with shoulders, this seems like an opportune time for the city to step up and build a trail, or even a separated cycletrack, however the SDOT’s plan for bicycles in this corridor consists only of a ten foot wide sidewalk on the south side of the road. When asked of the plans for connecting this sidewalk to the West Seattle Bridge trail, the SDOT confirmed that bicyclists will have to stop and use two crosswalks, meaning two light cycles, to continue. There will be no bicycle facilities added to East Marginal Way South, requiring bicyclists to convert from vehicular traffic in the street to pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk. While to our south Portland is using innovative designs like bike boxes to create seamless infrastructure for bicyclists at intersections, the city of Seattle continues to consider a line drawn on a map as an adequate bicycle facility with no planning as to where these lines meet.

As to connecting Spokane Street to the SODO trail to provide a critical connection for cyclists to the southernmost Link Light Rail facility on the west side of Beacon Hill, the city has communicated that continuing the SODO trail as recommended in I-27 of the SBMP is too expensive, but they may add facilities to 6th Ave S. With heavy truck usage, this street is unlikely to get a road diet to improve safety. However every other north/south corridor through SODO is a fast four-lane road so there is little alternative. To the south at the Stacey/Argo rail yard, 6th Ave ends are cyclists are forced on to shoulder-less bridges without bicycle facilities. Here exist no plans to implement the possibilities in SBMP I-82. The Airport Way S bridge is in the design phase for rehabilitation and the SDOT has been silent about adding bicycle facilities to the approaches that are bing replaced. As major construction projects are completed and underway, the city of Seattle appears to be backing away of from all of recommendations made for this region.

Bicycling facilities need to be more than lines on a map. Care needs to be given to the design of the connection of these bikeways such that they create complete routes that give citizens confidence that they can travel from one part of the city to another.

In 2007, we had just passed the Bicycle Master Plan and a group of businesses were shocked the city was going to remove a lane from the Stone Way and they were scared that it would result in horrible traffic backups.  By 2010, they believed that traffic would increase 10-times and that the loss of a lane would create gridlock.

SDOT just release a study of that road diet.

http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/StoneWaybeforeafterFINAL.pdf

Pedestrian collisions are down 80%

Bicycle traffic is up 35%.

Vehicles speeding by 10+ mph dropped by 75%!

The businesses that offered the stiffest resistance to the road diet are even still open and don’t see gridlock blocking their front doors.

The city is currently debating a road diet on Nickerson, and we encourage the city to look at the success of Stone Way and make the needed changes for the safety of the college students who cross this road every day.

The Seattle Times just did a story on some of the history of cycling in Seattle and a few of the diverse groups of cyclists.  They did a good job and it is worth reading.

We’ve been thinking about cycling and infrastructure in terms of the different communities of cyclists.  Each community has different needs, different things that prevent the community from growing.  Often the thing that one group of cyclists pushes for, like road riders pushing for sharrows, is either not useful for some other cyclists like cyclocross racers, or scary for other groups like parents with small children.  When we operate as bicycle advocates, we need to be careful that we don’t build ourselves into a corner where we block other communities of cyclists.

We aren’t all vehicular cyclists who are confident on the road.  While we’d love for all cyclists to become vehicular, there will always be 6-year olds who aren’t visible enough for safety and very un-athletic cyclists who can’t pedal faster than walking speed who won’t be very safe in traffic.

Just a few of the diverse communities are:

• Commuters, carrying their laptops and clothes to work every morning and home every evening.
• Club event rider, knocking out a 100 mile, century, ride in an afternoon.
• Utility riders, carting groceries and other goods from
• Parents, ferrying children between home, daycare, school, and other events on xtracycles, trail-a-bikes, tandems, and/or trailers.
• the store to home.
• Randonneurs, going on multi-day self-supported bicycle vacations.
• Track racers, using a velodrome to go as a fast as possible around in a circle.
• Cyclocross racers, racing on dirt tracks through trees, mud, and tossing the bicycle on their shoulders for sections as they sprint around obstructions.
• Bicycle Polo participants, just needing a small flat surface either hard or grass where they can manuver.
• Bicycle Music Festival audience members and performers, needing a stage and a place for the pedal powered generators that provide the juice for the amps.
• Children bicycling to school, needing safe routes and slow streets.

Are you a member of a community that we didn’t list?  What barriers are there for new members of your community?  What would help your community grow?

 Other blogger thoughts and experiences:

http://www.bikingbis.com/blog/_archives/2010/5/21/4534071.html

http://www.bikejuju.com/2010/bike-to-work-day-in-seattle/

http://kentsbike.blogspot.com/2010/05/work-to-bike.html

http://bikehugger.com/2010/05/bike-to-work-2010-portland-sea.html

http://carfreedays.com/2010/05/21/the-bike-fairy-and-bike-to-school-month/

In Ballard and Fremont, bicycle traffic seemed thick around 8am.

As soon as I left the driveway, I saw another cyclist:

There was nearly a traffic jam on the trail:

The commute station was a traffic jam:

But BikeSport from Ballard provided mechanical support:

And we had a demo of how to haul a lot of cargo by bicycle:

Experienced cyclists show how to be visible:

The Fremont Commute Station at Nickerson and Fremont Ave was HUGE and packed:

It seemed like a good day despite the forecast of Thunderstorms and 90% chance of rain.

Thunderstorms and a 90% chance of rain are in the forecast for today.  Will that dampen the spirits for Bike to Work day?

Not for carfreedays with the Bike to School fairy!  Not for the mayor who will be bicycling to work this morning.  Not for many of the more than 10 thousand commute challenge participants.

For much of bike to work month, the weather has been better as we see cyclists crossing the Fremont bridge,

the Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board working hard to make sure that Seattle Department of Transportation has thought of everything,

parents biycle with their children,

and commuters enjoy the peaceful sections of their commutes.

Have an enjoyable Bike to Work Day!

Last night, the fierce wind and rain paused and was silent just long enough for the small group of cyclists to mourn the passing of our fellow cyclists.

Before the event got started, there was some discussion of the low turnout.  Cascade Bicycle Club is the only major regional bicycle club in the nation that does not support the Ride of Silence. 

The event then turned to the reason why we all gathered together.  We gathered there in the memory of those who we have lost and in the hope that the roads can be safer.

In recent history:

• Jose Hernando – 44
• John Leoni – 35
• Carol Saomon – 60
• Kevin Black – 39
• Paul Ratliff  - 56
• Terry McMacken – 51
• Bryce Lewis – 19
• Susanne Scaringi – 27
• Marvin Gene Miller – 58

The Ghost Bike  
 
I stood there  
alone  
in the rain  
staring at the sad image  
of a bicycle  
that marked the tragic end  
of a life too short  

Anger  
frustration  
and fear  
that someday  
one might mark  
where I fell     
   
I cannot stop riding  
but I feel the loss  
of all those who  
were cut down  
and pray that  
someday  
somehow  
the slaughter 
will end 

- James C. Parsons